Henrik Vogt is commenting - an receiving replies too
Most of the leadership of the Norwegian medical authorities seem to have fallen for this nonsense. The problem is clearly systemic, not limited to personal failure.I am almost sorry for Vogt. Actually no, he deserves everything.
I am thinking that the department he trained in must be a crazy quackfest of incompetents thinking they are harnessing the power of the mind to cure devastating illness.
No, you are not.Am I seeing bogey-men where there are none?
It is a double edged sword. We certainly could not have achieved what we have so far without the internet.I very much doubt there are any more. But modern communications has made it easier for them to collaborate, whilst also making it easier to expose them.
Yep. He did it entirely to himself, against all warnings, and richly deserves the reputational & professional fate coming his way.I am almost sorry for Vogt. Actually no, he deserves everything.
I am almost sorry for Vogt. Actually no, he deserves everything.
I am thinking that the department he trained in must be a crazy quackfest of incompetents thinking they are harnessing the power of the mind to cure devastating illness.
In my view, readers and guideline bodies are now equipped to reach their own conclusions on the quality of the evidence in support of this therapy
In my view, readers and guideline bodies are now equipped to reach their own conclusions on the quality of the evidence in support of this therapy
Uh. Good point. The embrace of LP by Norwegian medical authorities must be very confusing. It's blatant quackery but to anyone who trusts their training and the system they work in, it's a hard conflict to reconcile. How can so many smart people in a position of authority be so wrong? You'd have to be a medical historian with deep knowledge of how this happened many times in the past to know better. Oops.Vogt strikes me as being a (relatively) big fish in a very, very small pond. And, lets face it, BPS/psychosomatic departments are very shallow, small ponds indeed.
When we leave our small ponds for the first time most of us question whether we might not be as smart as we once thought we were, but Vogt appears to be completely oblivious.
He seemed genuinely baffled in the comments on a blog post elsewhere after people laughed at him when he claimed that an anecdote of a LP success story on Youtube was sound scientific evidence of the LP's efficacy.
That is my view.Could this be the statement of someone who has been pressured into keeping the paper but thinks that anyone reading it as it stands now will see what rubbish it is?In my view, readers and guideline bodies are now equipped to reach their own conclusions on the quality of the evidence in support of this therapy.
That is my view.
For somebody to have the power to effectively silence and neutralise the chief editor of the BMJ on such blatant psuedo-science is a very revealing and disturbing insight into what we are really up against.
As I have been saying for years, this goes way past just us and this little corner of medicine. There is something far bigger in play and at stake here. We are just the early victims of it all, the experimental guinea pigs.
Oh what fun.
http://www.virology.ws/2019/12/16/trial-by-error-my-stat-opinion-piece-on-bmj-and-dr-godlee/On Friday, STAT posted my opinion piece about BMJ and the Lightning Process paper–in particular, about BMJ’s decision not to retract the paper despite the multiple documented violations of core ethical and methodological principles of medical research. That anti-scientific decision is potentially harmful not only to children suffering from a stigmatizing illness but ultimately to the reputations of BMJ and Dr Godlee as well.
STAT is an excellent, Boston-based, online reporting operation that examines the nuts-and-bolts of research and policy in health care and medicine. It is widely read and widely respected. STAT has published previous pieces on the illness in question, including this on the downfall of PACE (by Julie Rehmeyer), this on the CDC’s decision to drop its CBT/GET recommendations (by Julie Rehmeyer and me), and this on an insurance decision in a patients’ favor (by Steven Lubet and me).